Tuesday, March 29, 2011

From Instapundit comes the link of 12 Reasons Women Can't Stand Nice Guys. Well, duh, nice guys are beta males. Which is another way of saying "un-sexy." American and Western society is completely and totally focused on providing the maximum of sexy men to most women. The only problem with this is that it provides no way to produce all the nice things women want, along with sexy men. A safe and secure environment? Nope. An expanding, growing economy? Nope. Ever advancing technology that makes food better and safer and cheaper, medical practices more life saving and life-enhancing, living better in every way? Nope.

Providing "sexy men" merely produces a fairly rapid fall into chaos, poverty, and violence. One need only look at how the Black community, which went from (per Juan Williams 2005 WSJ Father's Day op-ed) 24% illegitimacy in the early 1960's, to over 90% in the urban core and over 70% nationwide today. New Orleans in particular carries the shadow of former Black society. Building after building that housed Black Benevolent societies, Black associations of doctors, lawyers, accountants, and the like. New Orleans in Jelly Roll Morton's and Louis Armstrong's day (just listen to the former's Library of Congress Recordings, likely available at your public library and definitely on Amazon, they have been re-released, or the latter's painfully typed out, non-ghostwritten autobiography) had a Black society that worked. True, it was far more violent and chaotic than the matching White one, but it did function. Armstrong may have been placed in an orphanage when his drug and drink addicted mother could no longer care for him, and given a trumpet of a boy who died of tuberculosis (something Armstrong never forgot). But at least Armstrong was not on the streets, the orphanage and everything else run by Blacks for Blacks. White people provided nothing.

Today of course, all that is gone. And the White rates are estimated to be around 20% for the White middle class, and 40% for the White working class (below 4% for all Whites in the early 1960's). The Hispanic rate according to Heather McDonald at City Journal is over 50%.

Sexy men mean illegitimate children. They mean single motherhood, because the bad-boy things that make men sexy, make them totally uninterested and unable to provide for a single women (they are more interested in having the next sweet young thing, and can get them too!) Single motherhood of course, is a poverty factory. Maybe not if you're as good looking (and the son of a famous father) as Freddy Prinze Jr. Or the daughter of a College Professor, whose brothers are all lawyers and doctors (Eliza Dushku). But for those not on the upper one half of one percent of attractiveness or intelligence or both, or with the talent and physique of LeBron James, life as the child of a single mother is poor, violent, and hard. No matter how much welfare is thrown at the mothers and children.

Recently, Mike Huckabee criticized Natalee Portman's Oscar acceptance speech for glamorizing single motherhood. James Carville on CNN made the comment that in Huckabee's apology, he at least "realized" that government support is necessary for single mothers to avoid starvation and poverty. Carville of course did not get it, literally living in 1965.

A few single mothers can be amply and ably supported by a social welfare system that is not under financial pressure, from an ample middle class. A social welfare system under huge pressure from a Black underclass, an exodus of poor Mexicans (and significantly, their descendants), and a growing White working-underclass, is unsustainable.

Hispanic girls tend to start having kids at age 16, having nino after nino, until age 40 or so, with various bad boys. It might be very sexy. But it is not sustainable, because there just are not enough White middle class taxpayers able (much less willing) to pick up the tab. White (to some extent Asian, varying by community/culture/ethnic group) parents generally (mostly, not always) have kids they can afford. White women for the most part still (particularly in the middle class) have only the kids they can afford to have. Asking them, and even worse, their male counterparts to subsidize the family formation of Hispanic girls chasing bad boys at age 16 (and having kids they cannot afford) is simply impossible. There are too many single mothers needing subsidies, and too few taxpayers able to pay for them.

From the article on 12 Reasons Women Can't Stand Nice Guys, the consists of the following reasons:

Nice guys are too nice (translation: not sexy!

Nice guys don't take control and demand "respect" (translation: Are Not Socially Dominant A-holes with lots of other women

Protection, bad boys are better protection because they are better fighters, doing it so much (translation: a guy beating the crap out of someone else, even a woman (see Rihanna) is sexy!

The article concludes:

Life is about balance. Most men fall into either the bad boy or the nice guy category. The ideal man is neither, but walks that fine line between the two. Until men learn how to do this, more often than not, women will choose the bad boy, until they realize that his bad qualities outweigh his good ones.

Or, perhaps we can turn that around:

Life is about balance. Most women fall into either the sexy stripper or the nice virginal girl category. The ideal woman is neither, but walks that fine line between the two. Until women learn how to do this, more often than not, men will choose (if they are sexy) to screw as many women as possible until they reach their late fifties at which point they'll marry their own Catherine Zeta-Jones, the rest will have occasional sex but find in the main, a used-up cougar to be inferior to a porn subscription. Regardless, women won't get quality men to marry them. And will be left with dregs whom if they do marry, they will resent as "kitchen bitches" and beta males.

There, all fixed!

The problem is that most women, even those of average attractiveness, can have sex with an Alpha male. Tiger Woods women, that of Jessie James, those of John Edwards, and so on, are not exactly Helen of Troy. Women over-estimate their beauty, and their beauty's duration, because they can be just another meaningless play-mate for an Alpha male with little discrimination.

Women consider themselves old at 29 – half the age of men who don’t feel over the hill until they are 58, according to a study.

A quarter of women say they felt old as soon as they spotted their first grey hairs.

In contrast men tend to think they are still young until they can no longer perform in the bedroom.

This is just another expression of desire for sexy men. Only the prettiest women can command the attention of the top sexiest men in any social setting. For most women, their looks start to fade fast in their twenties, and the fact of the hottest, bad boy men no longer noticing them can be a shock. Still, women tend to over-estimate how long they can play the field, and underestimate their chances of losing out by not making the best available choice sooner.

If the Duke F-List girl was at all representative, 13 partners in two years is not an extreme outlier. Needless to say, a girl with too many partners, all those bad boys, is a poor prospect for a wife, and any woman in her thirties is going to be fairly undesirable for any man with any options at all (this includes porn). [Women generally don't understand this, I explain below for them.]

Why is so many partners, and particularly bad boys, such a bad thing for a woman searching for a husband? Because the 90% of men who are not Alpha males (the sexy bad boys who can have almost any woman in their social circle) know fairly well that the most intense bonds, shared experiences, sexual pleasure, and memories will be with other men. At best, they are mere shadows of what was, and remains, in a woman's heart, at that age. Even the most beautiful woman in her thirties is less desirable therefore than a fairly inexperienced, un-baggage ridden average looking girl in her early twenties, or late teens. All the Botox, Pilates, Jillian Michaels workout videos, and Nautilus toned body won't change that fact. Only the most desperate, clueless, and lonely men will respond.

This is true even for widows and divorced women. The absent husband, no matter how badly he left, will always be the dominant man in the woman's heart and memories. Porn has the massive ability to substitute for what amounts to indifferent sex (even the most beautiful woman in her thirties loses her appeal, and lets face it Jane Average is not Jennifer Aniston at age 32) and emotionless coupling.

All the "man up" exhortations by writers like Kay Hymowitz can't force men to commit to women after they've chased their share of bad boys. Women can chase the bad boys all they want, but like everything, there is a cost.

Yes, it is true, about 90% of all middle class White guys are beta males. They are not sexy and exciting. They are neither bad boys in the mold of Russell Brand, nor George Clooney. News flash: About 90% of all Middle Class White women are not Jennifer Aniston, at age 40. Let alone beauties like Mila Kunis, or Brittany Snow. Asking about 90% of men to be something they are not is akin to asking 90% of all middle class White women to as beautiful as say, either Ashley Greene or Brittany Snow (to pick at random two Maxim cover-girls). Women's desire for sexy men is an unreasonable as men's desire for most women to look like Maxim cover-girls.

But women can make it, because they unlike most men have the asymmetric ability to sleep with the male equivalent of Brittany Snow (that would be the Russell Brands of the world). They just can't get those bad boys to marry them and support them.

The dynamic is complicated by both gender and racial spoils politics. A good part of the female demand for sexy men is the Hispanic/Mexican girls desire and willingness to start having kids at age 16 with bad boys who cannot support them. Thus inducing a massive welfare burden. A full 83% of Santa Ana Unified School District students receive subsidized/free meals. Obviously about 83%, or so, of SAUSD parents cannot afford to pay for their kids meals. Requiring federal subsidies.

In this, both White women, and non-Whites, are generally aligned in interests. Their interests are in extracting the maximum amount of money from taxpayers, to fuel children (family as defined as single mom plus kids by various sexy bad boys) and family formation. The catch is that a very significant portion (most of them, in fact) of Middle Class White women are also taxpayers, and don't like the money going to people not like them. Welfare for Hispanic/Mexican single mothers, means ultimately no subsidies for NPR (and jobs there), or federally supported foundations, or paper-pushing "studies" busywork in education, the environment, and so on. All the money increasingly needs to be poured into either K-12 or welfare spent on Mexican/Hispanic single mothers.

So what are the implications of the widespread female demand that most men be sexy (clearly most Mexican men are "sexy" to their female peers, mostly by an uber-macho, combative set of behaviors, particularly including gang membership and criminal violence)?

The first is obviously, a decline in technological advancement. Clearly, outsourcing, in-sourcing, and the export of American manufacturing to China and elsewhere has destroyed American innovation. But in part, this has been abetted by the total demand for sexiness. While nearly all of Aaron Sorkin's "the Social Network" was outright fabrication, what rang true was the total lack of desire (then and now) for billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. Particularly for women with their own money, and earning power, a man must be sexy beyond mere wealth. Wealth alone will not cut it, hence the lack of desire expressed for beta males like Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, no matter how much power and influence they wield. Neither has the smidgen of sex appeal of say, Lamar Odom or Chris Brown. [Good Morning America wants Chris Brown back, despite his temper tantrum of ripping off his shirt and throwing a chair through a window, and trashing his dressing room there. Because their female audience finds him sexy, no matter the beat-down he gave then girlfriend Rihanna. He's a BAD BOY. That means, sexy. For women, in general, all is forgiven as long as a man is sexy. Sexy, sexy, sexy.]

Facebook is not anything new. Its merely a Friendster or MySpace that works. With a few more features. It is not game-changing technology. Steve Sailer wondered, recently, where all the innovation went? "Where are my flying cars?" Well, they went the way of nuclear families formed by pocket protector wearing geeks. Those with that bent had few or no children, as women demanded sexy bad boys who are great in the sack, but cannot produce game-changing technology (like say, a cure for cancer or artificial organs that work, or electric car batteries with the power and weight ratio and range of the internal combustion engine, with comparable refill times). Add to it, the lack of incentive to strive. Those with the current bent for technology not only face a bleak outsourcing, in-sourcing H1-B visa environment, they face a life of sexless monkdom. No wonder they are slackers.

Innovation and change is rarely produced by some great idea borne out by a single genius. Most of the time, it requires an idea, that was fascinating, that was dropped, and then developed a bit later, by someone else, and then someone else and other people put it and other bits together to form a new whole. Something impossible without all the other bits around, done by other people, often in concert.

Sexy men means stagnant or reversing technology. People unable to build or maintain things they were fifty years ago. In 1969, America reached the moon. America has now abandoned even low Earth orbit. Not the least of which is that we lack the technology to make even that happen any more.

Sexy men also means a race to the bottom for sexiness. Women's demand for sexy men does not happen in a vacuum. Men tend to respond. The easiest way to be sexy, as noted by author Lucia, is to thug it up. Be dangerous, fight a lot, smack people around (even your girlfriend, see Chris Brown, or Charlie Sheen). The more violent and dangerous a man is, the more women will want him. Even if he's ugly, or is accused of murdering some other woman. Joran Van Der Sloot cut a wide swath among women in Asia, drawn by his infamy in the Natalee Holloway case (Van Der Sloot has all but confessed to murdering Holloway). Of course, Van Der Sloot killed a young woman in Peru, who unwisely went to his hotel room, drawn by his fame no doubt.

One need only look at the Ghetto and Barrio to see this in action. "Senseless" killings are not, merely the dark side of female sexuality. Since women find bad boys to be sexy, Ghetto and Barrio men make themselves bad boys by ultra-violence. When some little kid, or grandmother, or infant is shot in a drive-by, be assured that somewhere, a gang banger is having sex (if he's not arrested). As Roissy points out, even adjusting for race, criminals have more kids than non-criminals. In other words, comparing White guys to White guys, and Black guys to Black guys, and so on, those locked up or who have been locked up have more kids than those who were never locked up. Despite being, well, locked up for some non insignificant amount of time.

As Roissy points out, Chicks Dig Jerks. And as more and more men become aware of this, they will do their level best to turn themselves into the biggest jerk they can. Bet on it. And once they know it, it is almost impossible to turn them back.

Look at Black Rappers. They make all that money. All that fame and fortune. Or say, Michael Vick, at the time possessing a $130 million contract. Why risk all that money for stupid violence, a shooting in a club, dog fighting rings, etc? Because acting like a violent thug all their life has gotten them the hottest, most desirable women. And more women than they can even remember. Sexual rewards will work on the White middle class, and its men, just as much as they did on Black men in the Ghetto. Or Mexican men in the Barrio.

No, it won't happen overnight. Significant social conditioning, rewards, and so on make middle class White guys more resistant to violence. But certainly, the kids of single mothers will know exactly what turned their moms on: violent, dangerous bad boys. They'll copy those guys, and even provide some "improvements."

The idea that White guys are inherently non-violent and shrink from confrontation (which would have shocked Black and Hispanic men of Louis Armstrong's age) particularly with non-Whites, is going to go out the window. In some respect this will be long overdue, but the cost is basically a nation comprised entirely of Scots-Irish "hillbilly" types. Which simply cannot run a modern economy and will look for fights the way Black and Hispanic men do, because it gets them sex!

So the social implications of sexy men demanded by White women along with Black and Hispanic women, is a very rapid movement, towards decline and violence. Making the wealth struggles to cut the welfare pie off an America with declining innovation and technological power, a declining White middle class, and so on, even more desperate. As the take shrinks, the usual response is to deal people out. Vote them off the Island, so to speak.

All prosperous societies, such as Japan, South Korea, Finland, Switzerland, and Coastal China, tend to suppress sexy men. They tend to limit, in various ways, the ability for Bad Boys to dominate all the desirable women. And on the other hand, limit women's choices. A woman must generally choose fairly early, if she wants a husband (Japan and South Korea's and China's low birth rates currently likely stem from their women rejecting the unsexy men they have on offer). Japan and South Korea, at least, are declining from massive and probably unsustainable population peaks with a well educated and prosperous workforce, with first-class infrastructure for the most part. [China is not so lucky on either front.]

But those societies throughout history and now, that allow sexy men, the dominant bad boys, and women to run things, are typically very violent, and primitive. Male cooperation goes entirely out the window. Why cooperate when you get better sex and reproductive opportunities by constant fighting? The female sexual utopia looks a lot like Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. And in some ways that is America's, and the West's, future.

Everything has its price, and the price for Sexy Men for Western women is basically the end as we know it, of Western civilization. With something approaching Dark Ages kingdoms or Mad Max as its replacement.

69 comments:

Pandagon often has a post berating nice guys for their 'creepiness' and 'underhanded ways' in trying to get girls. The hatred is so unbalanced and unfair that it seems to be instinctive - a efelxive revulsion fron the weak.

Of course we shouldn't be surprised to see this from the fembots who routinely ignore the faults of the PC powerful and physically dangerous (blacks, Muslims) in order to concentrate on throwing rocks at geriatric suburban christians.

If those reading are still unconvinced about the premise of Whiskey's article, think of it as a return to the tribal model. The women only mate with those men who are the most physically fit since that would guarantee the survival of their sexier (and fitter) progeny. Men compete and hunt & feed the tribe, while women control the tribe through reproductive fiat. Rule by blood, rather than rule of law. Not a good prospect for a civilized society. See also: The Iliad & The Eumenides

"Middle Class White women are also taxpayers, and don't like the money going to people not like them. Welfare for Hispanic/Mexican single mothers, means ultimately no subsidies for NPR (and jobs there), or federally supported foundations, or paper-pushing "studies" busywork in education, the environment, and so on. All the money increasingly needs to be poured into either K-12 or welfare spent on Mexican/Hispanic single mothers."

Sorry, but this won't happen. White women think the trough is unlimited, and that all we have to do is "tax the rich" and we can afford to do EVERYTHING!

Any experience with the dating game ought to convince anyone with a room-temperature and above IQ that sociobiology (aka evolutionary phychology) is REAL. Sociobiology is the ONLY explanation that makes sense for all of the irrational and emotional aspects of human behavior that tends to make things so complicated.

It is incomprehensible that anyone can live in the real world and still deny the reality of sociobiology (or evolutionary psychology, if you prefer) in humans. Such a denial is irrational.

Beautiful post, these ideas need to reach a much wider audience though. Not that that would change women's behaviors or anything, but men need to cooperate with each other to enforce cultural attitudes towards reproduction and family formation that are healthy for society.

Great piece Whiskey. The manosphere continually proves that it understands social trends better than anyone else in society.

I'd like to share my own personal experience with my older sister. She is, or rather was an alpha female. She attended UCLA in the late 90's and from what I gather slutted it up like most other girls. She even told me she met Kobe Bryant at a club once, she probably sucked his cock off too (this was before Kobe was accused of rape) anyhow as an Indian my family tried to set her up with a beta nice guy. He was more like a greater beta though, he was good looking although not tall, had a good career (engineer) and was a fun guy to be around. She was repulsed by him. Why wouldn't she be? She was riding the alpha cock of the UCLA frat bros, pro-athletes, and celebrities. Her ego was through the roof. By her mid 20's she realized none of that was gonna pan out and social pressure (cuz we're Indian) would not permit her behavior when she returned home from school where she could freely slut it up without anyone knowing. Now five years later this higher beta dude she rejected earlier is quite a catch and so a marriage is arranged between them. Several years down the line she divorces him cuz she met an alpha doctor at her work. She totally devastates her provider beta husband. Our family (myself included) still likes her ex-husband enough to socialize and remain in contact with him. Even our one form of control (social pressure) lost it's value as she began to earn money for herself and became repulsed by her beta husband (a greater beta at that). I watched this drama play out as a kid/teenager so I was baffled. Since coming across the ideas expressed here and elsewhere in the manosphere it all began to make sense.

This is disaster. "Creepy loser" is just another way of saying "unattractive" (and is a feminine response). Newsflash -- most women are unsexy too. Most women are too fat (compared to hot Hollywood starlets and models). Most women are older than the peak of beauty (Ages 16-19). Most women have too much sexual/emotional baggage. Most women have cellulite. All of which is unsexy.

Not only have I noticed this in real life, but even entertainment reinforces this dynamic. Look at movies like "Twilight" or shows like Trublood" and "Sex and the City." The entire theme of these programs is a vastly superior man who somehow provides love and commitment to a vastly inferior woman.

Does any woman really believe that a composite of Jacob's and Edward's best features would somehow commit to Bella? That Erik Northman and Bill Compton would really set aside the super hotties they sleep with to commit to Sookie Stackhouse? Or that Mr. Big would really marry a 35-year-old Carrie Bradshaw?

If you go back to Victorian times in the western world, a young woman's sexual behavior was put under VERY firm control by social standards. It was the duty of both older men and women to control a young woman's impulses for sexy men but in reality it was older women who kept a sharper eye.

Women are innately superior to men in keeping an eye on other people's business especially in affairs that people do not wish to be revealed! *grin*Secondly perhaps it is older women who know very well what would happen if a young woman were left to her decision making. Bad decisions would naturally be made and ultimately it is women who will have to pay the higher price for their miscalculations.

*oops hit the submit button too soon*cont...It is sad that older women today (40's and beyond) are not trying to help the next generation of younger women to make the smarter decision. Instead they are whoring around as cougars.

If this society collapses it got exactly what it deserve. I will put ZERO effort into trying to save it. I subscribe to the MGTOW crowd.

"Because the 90% of men who are not Alpha males (the sexy bad boys who can have almost any woman in their social circle) know fairly well that the most intense bonds, shared experiences, sexual pleasure, and memories will be with other men"

You really need to be more careful in your writing. Ninety percent of beta men are not homosexuals.

Female comprehension of economics is very limited. I've come to realise that the "Tax the Rich" solution is offered only by leftie loons. The rest of womankind go for the "Print More Money" approach. They say this with straight faces.

Whiskey/Testy99 - Just got to say that although I think your bat-shit crazy at (most) times, I still thonk your a man of great passion and are committrd to what you believe in -- and for that I say God Bless You -- and to your tenacious and courageous spirit in standing up for what you believe.

Know whats funny? I was a 'nice guy' all my life. Never cheated, was always physically and emotionally available and was cheated on in every serious relationship from high school to mid-30's, including my marriage which ended 9 months ago (my wifes mother died right before our wedding and I bent over backwards handling the arrangements and helping her through her depression. She left me for another man 2 years later).

Since my divorce I've been an emotionless prick, ignoring all but the hottest women, and treating the ones I do notice with a mixture of raw lust and open disdain. I've never been laid so much in my life.

I'm nothing to look at; 36, 6'1", 250lbs, bald and bearded with a permanent limp from a truck driving accident a few years back... I went 15 YEARS without a decent blowjob because I would be nice and not insist. Fuck it, now I practically force myself down their throats and they love it. Being a fucking asshole in this day and age is a horrifyingly beneficial way to live. The 20y.o. me would hate who I am now, but it definitely has its perks.

My experience has been that liberal and libertarian women will seek bad boys and alpha males at any cost while conservative women while still having hunger for alpha males are restrained by their background, upbringing or circle where these values are disdained and instead of seeking sexy men they are taught to seek out stable, respectable men that will continue on and build community and society plus concentrate all of their love on God (channel this desire to God). My mother converted to traditional Christianity in her early twenties and married my father as a virgin as well (my father in Whiskey's language would be a cross between alpha and beta).

"A society that depends only on sexy will fail. Bet on it."

You got that right. Avoid sluts, emotionally damaged and unstable women and reckless bad boys. They will destroy society.

@Jules said The women only mate with those men who are the most physically fit since that would guarantee the survival of their sexier (and fitter) progeny. Men compete and hunt & feed the tribe, while women control the tribe through reproductive fiat. Rule by blood, rather than rule of law.Not a good prospect for a civilized society.

Progress and civilization occurred when the choice was mostly taken out of the woman's hands, or at least the choices were greatly reduced.

In an environment where a woman either acquires somebody who will feed her and her progeny, or starves to death, that woman's choices are mostly limited to betas willing to commit. Such is the heart of civilization.

What changed in the last few decades is that women acquired the ability to get fed without needing a male voluntarily willing to provide for her, whether through welfare or having a job that allows her to earn a living as a single woman or single mom. How long this state of affairs can continue is a good topic of discussion.

The viability of the welfare state is very shaky right now, as the number of recipients is approaching the max carrying capacity of the taxpaying classes.

The viability of the economy that allows women to be self-supporting is also shaky, since it requires lots of men being motivated to maintain it.

A man with a wife and kids to support is motivated to maximize his earnings. He has an incentive to do well in school, go to college, get a degree, and slave away at a stressful job.

A man with no wife, no kids, and no prospects of a successful marriage has no incentive to work beyond what he needs to finance his entertainments.

In my college human sexuality course the instructor set up a panel for students to discuss sexual topics (male, female, LGBT) one of the female participants said something that I remember to this day. She was appearance wise a nice homely girl. Probably the kind that would snag a provider beta one day. Boy was I wrong, I'm sure she will snag a beta but only to help raise her bastard. To her credit she was honest about her past tho, she said she was gang banged/had a train run on her, etc by the alphas on the football team, she bragged about her conquest and how she loved getting pounded hard. This occurred in high school mind you, not even an adult yet and was she quite the "liberated" woman. Wow, just wow is all that comes to mind. Society is really unraveling folks. With other problems at least we have some idea of how to fix them we just lack the will, but the social trends described here and elsewhere have almost never been discussed by any mainstream media outlet.

So how much of this has to do with the advent of photography, film, and video?

In ages past, both men and women had to choose from whoever was available in their local village and in their social circle. Does mass-produced photography and video create unrealistic expectations, since people of both sexes can see images of people of extraordinarily uncommon sexiness; not to mention the use of such techniques as airbrushing, Photoshopping, and CGI?

I know that type of woman (homely but oversexed), having been BF to one some time back. If I'd behaved with her in public the way she'd behaved with me, let's just say I would have been expelled for sexual harrassment.

Met another one at the beginning of my time in College. Stridently Leftist, barely 5" tall, & somewhat chubby. Realizing that the males in my orientation group might take her for a "good girl", she was quite loud about her sexual past & sexuality in general, even bringing up things like zoophilia (once again reverse the genders - had one of the male Freshmen brought this up, he would of course have been shunned as a "creeper"). Finally, a Senior chaperone (who also happened to be better looking than the midget) got tired of it and basically told her to shut up; she behaved herself afterwards. Not surprisingly, I later found out that this older girl was an Evangelical Christian. Just goes to show that even today, the social constraints & shaming that religion provides can be effective. Once confronted with social disapproval - from another woman, no less - she probably felt embarrassed for the first time in a long while.

This post and the philosophy behind it assumes that economic freedom and sexual freedom can not coexist. That is an unproven assumption. What we have seen with the experience of the 20th century to the present is the rise of welfare-statism and the regulatory state along with inflationary central banking. Simultaneously we have seen the rise of sexual freedom. This HBD or "sociobiology" analysis assumes that sexual freedom leads to a regulated economy, depressed economy, etc.. That is a non-sequitur. It does not follow.

If there were a pro-liberty movement that abolished the welfare state and institutionalized self-responsibility, that abolished the central bank and its inter-generational inflationary Ponzi scheme, that eliminated preventative law (except for national security areas), that eliminated public education and socialized medicine_totally_. Well, then it would be interesting to see if these HBD predictions of sexual liberation leading to civilizational destruction would come true. I would bet the ranch they would not.

The HBD or scientific racism (what it really is) thesis is nothing more than dressed up social conservatism. It has conservatism' typical disdain for freedom in the sexual realm and it has conservatism' view of freedom - namely freedom equals anarchy.

This just shows that the real battle in America is not between the left and the "Right" but between Conservatism and Classical Liberalism. The Left will implode. The battle is for what comes after that. I would hate to live in an HBD, ie racial conservative, culture. And I do not think this "HBD" movement will ever become popular. A guy like Roissey will never become a mainstream voice. If nihilism like that were ever to become popular, then America would go to the dogs and no one would care.

"This HBD or "sociobiology" analysis assumes that sexual freedom leads to a regulated economy, depressed economy, etc.. That is a non-sequitur. It does not follow."

One wonders who pays for all of the bastards, the STD clinics, the nonsensical "female/DV/black/queer studies" classes, the Grrl Power seminars, the Female Health ministries, the free breakfasts, etc etc ad infinitum. And whether providing the above at gunpoint tends to increase or decrease economic liberty (not to mention more fundamental liberties. Note the Statist stampede in Europe towards more "hate speech" laws, so as not to hurt the feelings of the sorts of people most inclined to [ab]use government services.

Health care and education are tremendous expenses in any Western government; refer to Whiskey's figures from a month ago re: the California state government alone.

Then again, maybe Maria and Lakeesha and Zamika are wealthy single mommies, like Natalie Portman, & are not involved in activities that are a net economic negative (crime, makework government jobs, & so on). After all, the Pantsuit Choir assured us that Huckabee was wrong about Miss Portman, and that single motherhood (and easy sex) are just swell. Hypergamous females (especially minority females) taking out more than they chip in?? Perish the thought...!

And as a side note, I generally loathe Huckabee's politics & would be tempted to vote for 0bama against him, what with the "illegals = Children of God" garbage. It pains me to side with him.

Madmax -- Any sort of economic arrangement is possible if you have the wealth to support it. Welfare states in Europe were fairly stable over fairly long periods of time (in Germany, from the 1870's to today, basically, interrupted only by War). If you produce enough wealth, you can have a welfare state.

However, optimizing for sexy men creates poverty not wealth. Creating a wealthy middle class society requires the constant support of a beta-male type husband/father. Not intermittent sex with sexy bad boys.

I would like to state that i am a Black American male. While, i found the synopsis of your blog quite entertaining & will admit there is merit to your overall premise i do find it skewed in theory. i would 1st like to clear the matter of the racially charged rhetoric you presented as evidence. The white female comprises the overwhelming majority of the welfare rolls, so to state that the white middle class is burdened by the poverty of the black under-class is at best conjecture. Also 1 of the posters states, that conservative white females prefer the "beta males and reject the "Alpha males. That conclusion is also incorrect. in the southeastern US the white females seem to gravitiate towards the "redneck" type, who is the equivalent to the "thug in the black or hispanic communities. In the northeastern, western & mid-western states the white females seem to prefer the "under-acheivers" or slackers. so i find no differences based on color nor religious preferences, to womens choices in with whom they will copulate. i do find this phenomona quite interesting. my thought leads me to believe this has always been. the major difference now is the "beta" males unwillingness to any longer care for these "alpha" males offspring. Women are very sexual creatures and always have been. In most societies female sexuality was & is deemed inappropriate behavior so the women are left to secretive sexual desire which leads to infidelity. and the "beta" male being left to care for a bastard offspring unknowingly. now we zoom forward to modern times and the female is being tought to not settle for the "beta" male that she deserves better. she is bombarded with this message from birth. Her belief is, sex is the cornerstone of the realtionship & without sexual chemistry there is no compatibilty, thus no relationship. she also believes it would be better to live alone than marry a "beta male. consequently we see more singles than ever before and divorce rates at all time highs. The "alpha" males realize at young ages what they represent, he also learns that he can have any of these women whenever he wants them even if she is married. so he sees no reason to marry. if biological evolution exist then this phenomenon is accurate for the survival of the species. I however reject this notion & believe it to be a societal advent of the 20th century. I believe as the generations go by women will change their ideology for choosing with whom to copulate. Your only choice as a "beta male now reverts back to old sayings, "if you can't beat them join them" or my personal favorite "when in Rome do as the Romans do."

I guess that I never understood the labels, but I must be a "niceguy". God gave me a very happy life and if it needs to be without women in it, I can see that this is probably a good thing. What a horrible game you have out there!

"but the cost is basically a nation comprised entirely of Scots-Irish "hillbilly" types. Which simply cannot run a modern economy and will look for fights the way Black and Hispanic men do, because it gets them sex!"Very true...I work in the French Quarter of New Orleans; N.O. whites are ethnic catholics, but the business in the FQ these days is lots of hillbillies from the dry-counties looking to get drunk and start shit. Add to that the gang-bangers from the near-by projects, and you won't wonder why you won't see many locals. I'm living in the future you're predicting here.

That is why rich successful American men will travel to Asia,South and Central America, even the Ukraine; to marry young hot women...who make better wives...So,while you single parent minority welfare queens...grow old and ugly with all them bastard kids, I'll besoakin it up on RIO!!!

I don't hate "nice" guys I hate beta males, because they are smug passive aggressive assholes who think the world owes them everything.

They are the Travis Bickles of the world who actually think that because they don't want to put in any effort everyone is missing out on their delusions of grandeur.

Beta males are FAKE, they fake being good honest people to get what they think they deserve, and what they believe they are entitled to just for existing.

Beta males are weak, I love nice guys but only the genuine ones; the ones with self respect and not hidden behind ulterior motives. Ones who don't think that nice and submissive are mutually the same thing.

Beta males are NOT NICE, they are actors who perform what they think is 'nice' to get something out of someone. They are spineless fake narcissists.

Badboy is just a politically correct term for "sexy/good looking guy" Badboys can get away with their behavior because women are shallow and will put up with it because they are good looking. If a physically unattractive behaved the same way, a woman would just get irritated and call him a creep.

Women are really shallow now a day and only want the best looking guys even if they are average looking themselves. Women date up in terms of looks and men date down.

Ugly guy = creepy Handsome guy = confident

Women put up with bad attitudes/abusive behavior from good looking guys all the time. Good looking guys can act like bad boys because there are 1000 other shallow women in line to date them.

Guys try this out. Guys go use the picture of a really really attractive male on a dating site. Act like a bad boy and say you are only interested in sex. Women will have no problem with it because they are shallow!

(you can have the lamest profile and even misspelled words but women will still have no problem opening their legs to you on a first date cause they only care about looks!)

It's not shallow to have specific taste, to be physically attracted to somsone. THIS is what is wrong with beta males, they are the losers of the animal kingdom who don't get the guy or girl because they are whiny self important sycophants. Betas are terrible people.

im a male and nearly 30 have had my bad boy days as a teenager and got woman and now i would see myself as more of a nice guy and still get women but feel the issue for most males including myself is that we dont have female minds and think differently...think anyone male or female that is struggling to form a relationship or that has been in a bad one instead of putting the blame on the other half even though most likely you will say its all there fault etc..take the time to think how the opposite mind thinks as we are wired totally different,it may help your next relationship or your 1st one or the one your in now...if you can discuss with someone or in a group will do wonders in the long run...theres good people in the world and bad people i feel as though i have good karma and that i am a nice person but am always happy to learn more about myself and women so one day i can be in a healthy long lasting relationship,to all you woman out there HELP the nice guy whoes your friend and not your lover HELP him understand how he can improve his game and after that go and get the dishes done.

11.Protection, bad boys are better protection because they are better fighters, doing it so much (translation: a guy beating the crap out of someone else, even a woman (see Rihanna) is sexy!

1.Seriously? You'd rather get called a cunt?

2.We get respect by respecting others not by demanding it like a clueless dumbass,no translation needed and I hope you're smart enough to figure it out

3.And bad boys aren't? Oh wait nevermind,repeating the same thing with another bad boy is unpredictable

4.Wtf? We're supposed to save you

5.Who are you?

6.I hope for your sake drinking sperm on a daily basis taste good and you're so right,monkeys are less inferior

7.Where do you find this shit,I seriously wanna know

8.Don't even get me started on this one

9.Who you lookin for brad motherfuckin pitt?

10.So if I called you bitch and slapped the dog shit out you in public that's charming?

11.How the hell is rubbing up on somebody,pushing them while spitting in there face,and finally ripping there shirt off like a homo being a better fighter. I can tell you never seen a bruce lee film or star wars for that matter. And rihanna? You think getting a black eye is sexy?

Did you just say that a woman's peak of beauty is 16-19? Are you joking?

Women in their 20's are awesome as are those who are older. Men who view women as a commodity and demand them based on their age and appearance are morons- and they deserve the golddiggers that they attract.

Also this bullshit (thankfully) excludes gay men and women. Clearly non-straight people do not exist.

I have come late to the debate but I will add my two cents. In regards to reproduction in my experience a woman with an Alpha's child (or children) will always offer to have a child with a Beta male provider. I want to emphasize the word ONE! She knows she is offering the Beta a crappy deal and he will eventually figure it out after the lust wears off. If the Beta has a child with her he is vested in the relationship and will find it harder to disengage.

Wow. You people are depressing. Nice, normal men just have to decide to start calling these women on their Bs. Stop letting women control you with sex! Unfortunately most of us men feel it goes against guy code, to call out these bad boys and the fake copycats. We all know they are that way to get women. It takes some brave men to have a mind of their own to choose not to be a asshole. Nice doesn't have to mean stupid, naive or unsexy. Im nice and get lots of women.

I'm what can be called a beta in his mid-20s, I only had one partner and girlfriend when I was a teenager, but we were separated when I had to move to UK (I am German) for my studies.

I have since been rejected by women for some reasons, and it's not because I am unsexy, I am healthy, athletic, I take care of myself, but I don't have this aggressive/combative attitude typical to the alpha males, and that's why women hate me.

Now I lost any hope of finding a woman who love me for who I am, thus I focus on myself, my friends and my career, I have a very good professional situation as I am not disturbed by heart stories and other whining bullshits that women love to do.

Women think that when they will reach they date of expiration (mid-30s) there will be nice guys to take care of them, they couldn't be more wrong, when I will decide that the time has come I will go to buy a nice and submissive woman from a poor country then hold her with visa promises that I will never fulfill, and I won't have any guilt to do so considering how Western women rejected me.

I recently attended a talk about shamanism and hunter gatherer societies by an anthropologist and the subject of beta males and alpha males came up. His theory which can be backed up with a good amount of evidence is that for about 100,000 years our societies were based on beta qualities ,in fact if alpha qualities were displayed such as wanting to dominate and control it was seen as psycotic and this behaviour was quickly corrected by 99% of the tribe. His theory is that some tribes went crazy started dominating peaceful tribes and that's how modern " civerlization" and its controling attitude began,with its angry dictating gods which replaced the world wide shsmanic spiritual traditions that kept our species bonded together . The point is that 90% of men are beta as this is our sane natural state ! As this article states societies crumble when this rules is broken . The current sickness of our modern day is we are forced to believe alpha pshycosis is normal and healthy and something men should strive for and something women should want . It is not in womens nature to crave nut case bad boys they are simply brainwashed to think it is

you won't hear much about this side of the argument as it goes against the colonist mind set that we are all currently governed by . The survival of the fittest dogma from early biological science and the slow rape and destruction of our planet in the name of "progress". The fall of man is when we severed our ties from nature ,not an imaginary god. We saw ourselves as seperate from nature and not a part of it which is why as a species we are currently mentally I'll . All of our technological advances amount to shit as long as we operate under a system that's basically a human cancer